'Real' Wargaming and the Value of Research

I've noticed the odd thread and magazine article here and there regarding 'Real Wargaming' versus 'Imagi-Nations' and 'Made-up Wars', that appear to have the originators looking down their collective nose at those of us who make it up as we go along. What seemed ironic to me was that one of the forums supports a 'Modern' board which has a number of threads devoted to the 'Warsaw Pact Invasion of Western Europe' on apparently several occasions during the 70s to 80s... I know I was wild in my younger days, but how did I miss those? Obviously the comment 'There are plenty of real wars to recreate without making them up', doesn't apply equally.

I'll admit my settings are very anachronistic, but so what? People's ideas on what constitutes research varies. For some it's picking up the appropriate Osprey book, for others it's picking up several second-hand histories and picking the ones they like best, or 'the one' which fits their beliefs (sometimes they then go off and write a book or a set of army lists themselves based on 'what they know'). Few people also fail to appreciate that many military books are just rehashed versions of other books written by other 'experts', who've done any of the above as part of their research . Very few go off direct to the original sources and make an informed decision based on the evidence.

These ways of 'researching' tend to come across in figure ranges, rule sets and the games you see about the shows. It also leads to the perpetuation of wargaming or historical myths, which get perpetuated for years before they are challenged. What's even worse is that some people then commence to tell others that they've got it all wrong - at length.

I am of course just as fallible as the next person. The difference to me is that I know where research can go wrong, that's the only thing I'm 100% sure of. I also admit when I don't know, or I'm not certain, or spouting pure bollocks, when I'm talking. In my daily life my work has always required precise and detailed research and the examination of evidence, along with my forming an opinion which, if taken on board, can make positive or negative changes to someone's life. So sure, the very thing I want to do for relaxation is more of the same? I think not. It also puts things into perspective regarding whether my figures should have five buttons or six on their tunics.

It's a long winded way of saying I don't do research as such, which is not quite true in any case. I do research, it's part of the fun, however getting it right isn't a necessity and of course I can add in whatever floats my boat, or omit stuff I don't like. So maybe there weren't any Carden-Loyd tankettes in the SCW, but there sure will be in Hispañola. Don't get me wrong, I do admire the guys who can reliably inform you that, at 3.30pm on the 25th April 1942, the 110th Field Kitchen Unit lost half its draft horses and had to pull their equipment using camels*, but it's not for me.

Every wargame has an element of fantasy about it. Ancients gamers have happily pitted Ancient Egyptians against opponents that might date to 1485 AD, even in competition games. Napoleon has won Waterloo a few times and late WW2 German forces aren't forced to fight with shell-shocked and war-weary veterans who have to constantly keep an eye on the fuel gauge either. You can consider the multitude of armies who hit the table at full paper strength too. Is any of this real or somehow any more accurate than a British Civil War in 1938, or an imaginary island in the Caribbean?

Please don't consider this a rant as such. I just think that we should be more tolerant of others and what they choose to do for enjoyment and how they choose to do it. There's not room for anyone who plays with toy soldiers to be adopting a better than thou attitude really is there?

* I made that bit up, please don't quote me.